EA's anti piracy screwing up PC Mass Effect.

[shio]

Reasonable said:

shio said:

Reasonable said:
If this still holds true when the game ships then I for one will be passing this up. That level of piracy prevention is just crazy (particularly when it's going to be hacked anyway) and I for one am not going to endorse it in any shape or form.

This is one of the major reasons I've been steadily graviting from PCs to consoles and if this trend keeps up it looks like I'll only ever be buying Valve games in the future... Left 4 Dead here I come!

Now this is one of the most stupid reasons I've ever heard from people saying they switched from PC to consoles. It's a really stupid reason. The fact that 99% of the PC games do not have this such forceful anti-piracy protection just proves my point and how your statement is the opposite of your nickname.

Off the top of my head, only 1 major PC game uses this kind of excessive anti-piracy protection: Bioshock. I can't think of any other big game.

If EA is going to use such methods from now on, then we'll see how the sales will turn out. I'm still waiting for PC Gaming Alliance to think up of something to reduce piracy.

And for everyone saying they're not going to buy SPORE now: Shut Up ,this method doesn't affect SPORE since you NEED an internet connection to get the most out of the game. The 3 activation limits is a pain is the ass though, but let's be fair, 99% of us won't install the game in more than 3 PC's.

Err... I said one of the reasons - not the main reason. Sure, I'm still buying and playing games like Stalker, etc. but I will never buy a game with this level of DRM. And the fact is that this is only likely to increase, not decrease. With Crytek moaning about Crysis piracy and the 'supposed' success of this DRM on Bioshock you expect this to reduce?

BTW I'll wait for an apology on the stupid comment as to be blunt on the evidence of your rabid response its you that would appear to be pretty stupid - and exctly the kind of PC gamer who puts people off the platform.

I've been PC gaming (hell I still am) since ZX Spectrum - but while I know games still sell well on PC (and still think its the best gaming platform) I'm getting tired of expense as consoles close gap on power, of getting games second and sometimes poorly ported from a console version, of watching piracy growing and the resulting DRM backlash. Not only that but its pretty clear that the major focus of many developers (and perhaps innovation) is being pointed at consoles right now. Spore looks awesome, but where are games like LBP? Why are Epic, etc. putting the bulk of their effort into console versions first and producing (buggy) PC ports second?

Right now if a game is from Valve or on Steam without DRM that's where my money (and backing) goes for the most part - or gems like Stalker (bugs and all).

 

 

Thing is very few released games have DRM to such extent, and almost all of them are games that most people never even heard about; and that doesn't make sense when you're using the intrusive DRM arguement when you probably were barely affected by it. You can talk everything you want about the future, but it's uncertain how it will unfold, and more specifically the intrusive DRM's future.

Piracy didn't stop Crysis from crushing everyone's expectations and becoming a million seller in just 45 days. Not that it matters much since Crytek gets the most money from hardware manufacturer deals and the engine licensing.

"Spore looks awesome, but where are games like LBP?"

And where are games like Spore on consoles? Sure Wii and DS will get spin-offs, but they will be nothing compared to the PC version. Epic? Gears of War wasn't really high budgeted, and the game's success was unexpected. UT3 was developed firstly for PC and it was polished with little bugs or glitches, just that the game was dissapointing and was average compared to the other shooters and even it's antecessor UT2004.